• “Issues” is no more

    Earlier today, the General Synod of the Church of England took a hugely significant step. It removed a document called “Issues in Human Sexuality” from the discernment process for people being assessed for clerical vocations in the Church of England.

    Oh, I can hear you yawning from here. But it really is important and this is a significant step forward.

    “Issues” as it has come to be known became a touchstone for the Church of England. It was originally a statement from the Church of England Bishops about what they thought about sex and sexuality. It was never intended to become something that people had to agree with before they could be considered for ordination but it became so. Of course being the Church of England, people tried to make a distinction between agreeing with the document and agreeing to live in compliance with the document. Such corrosive thinking simply led people to tell lies and I’ve always thought that all Christians were agreed that telling lies was a bad thing that none of us should do.

    Issues was horrendous back in the 1990s when it was introduced. It set different sexual standards for clergy and laity, it referred to gay people as homophiles, it stated that bisexual people were inherently unfaithful to partners, it seemed to condone conversion therapy and much more. It didn’t just use language that we now find outdated, it used language that was prejudicial at the time and deeply harmful to huge numbers of people. I was trying to become an ordinand when it was published. It was devastating.

    It affected other parts of the Anglican Communion too. I know people who trained for ministry in Scotland who were told that living within the no-sex-for-the-homophiles boundaries of Issues was expected of them too. And many of us went to Selection Conferences for ministry that took place in the Church of England where the selectors were trained to expect potential ordinands to indicate that they would live within the boundaries of this document. For a while, we sent clergy from Scotland on Selection Conferences in England with a letter stating that this document didn’t apply in Scotland. But we were still using a system that was based entirely around discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. (I don’t think transgender people were addressed in the document).

    My thoughts today are with those whose vocations were crushed by Issues. And those who managed to have vocations upheld but whose personal lives were damaged by it. Some people lived unhappy lives that might have been completely different. My particular thoughts tonight are of a wonderful priest I once worked with whose love never spoke its name. He loved another priest and remained closeted – living or seeming to be living within Issues because that is what his church expected of him. When he died, his obituary in the Church Times did not mention the love of his life. He was presumed to be living within the boundaries of Issues and he died being presumed to be living within it. It is a simple reality that some people were expected to lie in life and could not have truths told when they died. (And that meant others who were beloved by clergy sometimes went unacknowledged and were ignored at funerals). 

    For the sake of him and hundreds of others whose lives have been harmed by this document both within and beyond the Church of England, I welcome the fact that Issues is now gone.

    And now the next questions.

    Will the Church of England stop selling Issues and presumably making money from the wretched document? It is still on sale on Amazon after all.

    And more importantly for everyone.

    • When will we hear apologies from church leaders for the harms that churches have done in relation to policies on human sexuality?
    • How will UK churches communicate their repentance for previous harms done, to churches in other parts of the world which have enthusiastically endorsed such policies in response to their adoption here – particularly those churches which think of the Church of England as their mother church?
    • What will compensation for the anti-gay policies of churches eventually look like?

78 responses to “10 questions arising from the misogyny of a “headship” bishop”

  1. Kelvin Avatar

    I think it is time for this discussion either to draw to a close or return to the 10 questions that I posed in the original post.

    I’ve chosen not to allow a number of comments through. These include one which indirectly compared me (and presumably “the liberals”) to paedophiles, a number which were of the “The bible plainly states that women are subordinate to men” type, another which was verging on proof-texting and another one which was trying to suggest to me and my readers that the payment of money to a particular religious leader in Africa who was able to cast spells would sort out a number of our problems.

    It is my blog, and I chose which comments to allow. Discussion of my commenting policy is not necessary.

    1. Kimberly Avatar
      Kimberly

      But casting spells… You’ve never had that offer before. Are you sure you aren’t tempted?

      1. Kelvin Avatar

        You think my own are not sufficient?

  2. Tom W Avatar
    Tom W

    Fair enough – answers to the 10 questions:

    1. To Members of Parliament: Are you really comfortable with 1 million children being educated every day by an organisation with these values?
    A: Apparently yes; there being faith schools (both Christian and Muslim) that teach ethics that you would find objectionable. Part of free speech, I guess.

    2. To candidates in the next election: Will you support the disestablishment of the Church of England because organisations which behave in this way should have no privileged place in parliament?
    A: I’m ambivalent about disestablishment; I think it will happen during the time I’m a C of E priest. But yeah – why not? – let’s disestablish rather than let non-Christian politicians ride roughshod over Christians’ consciences.

    3. To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Do you realise that this makes you personally look like a misogynist too as suffragan appointments are always personal to the bishop involved?
    A: I’m certain he is aware how this measure would be attacked, and that despite that he proceeded.

    4. In the General Synod of the Church of England: …. and if people ask for a bishop with racist views to represent them, will we do that too?
    A: No one is doing so. Nor would they be able to with biblical warrant. Fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

    5. To the BBC: Why are you not covering this story as a major news item?
    A: Because this is unremarkable now, given that it was agreed months ago in the run up to the measure being put before Synod.

    6. To those who serve in Church House, Westminster: Why do progressive changes to the Church of England have to go through years of debate at General Synod and regressive ones don’t?
    A: This isn’t a change; the novelty was in not having complementarian bishops since +Wallace Benn retired.

    7. To Primates around the communion: Why is this novelty and abuse of the episcopate acceptable when the appointment of a man who happened to be gay was so unacceptable?
    A: Because the majority of the Anglican Communion worldwide see this measure as consonant with biblical convictions, but the appointment of a gay bishop as not being so.

    8. To the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many in this country that the Church of England is institutionalising misogyny.
    A: Presumably he, like the unanimous Dioceses committee and the Archbishops don’t think this is misogynistic.

    9. To the silent Church of England Bishops who believe themselves to be liberal: How do you sleep?
    A: They may indeed find it objectionable, but have chosen to honour the promises made in the Guiding Principles for the greater good of the Church.

    10. To the first woman to be consecrated as bishop in the Church of England: Was it worth it on these terms?
    A: These were the only terms available after the legislation failed in 2012.

    1. Penelope Cowell Doe Avatar
      Penelope Cowell Doe

      Sorry, not on the 10 Qs but if you will allow I do want to respond to Ender’s post. I did not say that God was not interested in sexual relationships. I said I didn’t much care what people got up to with their genitalia. Textual criticism means being attentive to the text!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Predictions 2023 – How did I do?

    1  Generative artificial intelligence will become significantly disruptive of many sectors this year. Education practices will change quickly as a result of this but education will be but one of many areas of life to be affected. Happening all around us (even to people who can’t see it happening around them) – prediction fulfilled. 2…

  • Coupled Together

    Perhaps one of the most unexpected things that could have happened this year in religious terms is that in the last days of the year, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have moved to similar positions on same-sex couples. Now, precisely what those positions are is complex, almost falling into the…

  • Scottish Episcopal Kalendar 2024

    For years now, I’ve produced a Kalendar for the Scottish Episcopal Church with all the bible readings set out for the year. This year’s Kalendar is available online so that anyone can download it and print it out for themselves. It is available right here: Kalendar 2024 Anyone who would like to make a donation…